I had to take a deep breath before linking to this.
Oh, I agree with the end. He’s spot-on about Les Misérables. But let’s analyze his initial argument:
“I don't usually go to movies to be entertained; instead, I go to engage with truth, beauty, and goodness.” [Perhaps we have a different definition of what it means to be “entertained”? His second clause is my definition.]
“I find that movies often allow the voice of God to break into my soul in a way that no other medium can. Movies to me are like living icons - windows to God and truth.” [Amen! But let’s ask ourselves how they accomplish that, shall we?]
“As such, I have little regard or appreciation for the common kind of analysis that movie critics provide (with a few exceptions). For instance, I agree that There Be Dragons really didn't work well as a movie. Frankly, I don't care about the trivia related to why it didn't work well in general. However, I think that all serious Catholics should see it. Why? Because in this movie we are presented with the opportunity to, in some small way, peer into the heart of a saint.” [And how are we presented with that opportunity? Because the parts of the movie dealing with Escrivá are “entertaining” according to my definition above. That is to say, they are true, beautiful and good because they are well written and brought to life by a luminous performance from Charlie Cox. In other words, they are good in precisely the ways that Mr. Burke is about to dismiss.]
“So my criterion for whether or not a movie should be seen relates to its devotional value, not its cinematography, acting, or other qualities.” [Like Charlie Cox.]
“That said, I do recognize that these latter elements can significantly enhance a films devotional value.” [Okay, an important and clarifying concession. I think, precisely because we are coming closer, that this is where we part ways. Enhancement is something added to a thing, not something essential to the thing itself. If we’re talking about a movie, we should be talking about what is essential to it in itself.]
“Here's what I want to know: can the movie draw me closer to the heart of Christ and therefore conform me more and more to Him? Can it shape my mind and perception in a way that helps me to "bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ"? Can it help me to love what God loves, hate what God hates, and see our existence more clearly through His eyes? Does it help me to see what He sees?” [No argument. Now I’m going to argue.]
I don’t want to pick on Mr. Burke, whose work I generally admire, but this seems to me a particularly succinct summary of a lot that is wrong with the current “Catholic” approach to the arts. Actually, this statement is in some ways stronger than the usual approach I hear, which is some variation on “It doesn’t matter how technically/artistically good the film is: you MUST support it because the people who made it are Good Christians trying to communicate a Good Message.” Alas, the best of intentions are no guarantee of the result. Mr. Burke’s approach is more interesting because he focuses, not on the intentions of the artists, but on the resulting effect on an individual viewer.
And taking it that way, he has a point. All that matters, in the end, is the salvation of souls. And to that end, I firmly believe that God can (and does) use anything and everything to accomplish His purpose. So if someone tells me that There Be Dragons (and maybe even the artistically poor parts) drew him “closer to the heart of Christ,” well, Hallelujah! In fact, if someone told me that a Precious Moments figurine had drawn him to Christ - the real Christ, not a Precious Moments Christ - I would be taken aback, but I would likewise rejoice.
But here’s the thing. God literally uses anything and everything. Including earthquakes, wars, and Jar Jar Binks (I’m certain He must use Jar Jar somehow...right?). So the fact that God can and does use a thing to bring someone to Christ does not make the thing itself good.
I am not comparing There Be Dragons to Jar Jar Binks. (Or to a war. Jury’s still out on the earthquake.) I am saying that to judge a film by its effect on the viewer, and to argue that nothing else matters, is one more variation on the argument that the ends justify the means.
To say that God can use a thing that is not good does not absolve us of our responsibility to try to make a thing good. Precisely because we cannot control the outcome, we should be looking at the thing in itself and working for its proper perfection. And the proper perfection of a movie, as a movie, is to be well-written, well-directed, well-acted, well-photographed, etc. In other words, to be entertaining.
When writing is bad, it is untrue. When directing or cinematography is poor, it is not beautiful. When acting is overwrought and self-important, it is not good. A badly-made movie distorts, to the level that it is badly made, the truth, beauty, and goodness that Mr. Burke desires.
Beauty is tough, though. It is more real than its absence. And thus it has a way of creeping back in. I’ve seen movies that drive me crazy...except for one transcendent moment, or scene, or character. I hang onto those moments.
But I also look at the rest of the movie and think, what if all of it had been that beautiful, that true, that good?
In other words, what if There Be Dragons had been Les Misérables?
